REKHA PALLI, J.

1. The present batch of writ petitions raise common issues with similar prayers and are being decided vide this common judgment.

2. The first writ petition bearing no. W.P.(C) No. 934/2012 has been preferred by Mr. Sudhir Vohra, an architect registered under the Architects Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), mainly seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar of Companies and Ministry of Corporate Affairs to not entertain registration applications from any “company” or “Limited Liability Partnership” (hereinafter referred to as "LLP") which states that it provides architectural services as of one of its objectives in its memorandum of association (hereinafter referred to as "MOA"). The Petitioner therein also prays for a direction to the Registrar of Companies and Ministry of Corporate Affairs to take timely action against the existing companies and LLPs which contain the provision of architectural services as one of their objectives, and initiate winding-up proceedings against those existing companies and LLPs that fail to delete such objectives from their MOA. He also makes an ancillary prayer for the issuance of a direction to the Council of Architecture (hereinafter referred to as "COA") and Ministry of Human Resource Development to take all possible steps to ensure the observance of professional ethics and standards set for architects under the Act.

3. The second writ petition bearing no. W.P.(C) No. 3975/2014 has been preferred by Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma and Mr. Sudhir Vohra (who has also preferred the first writ petition referred to hereinabove), both of whom are registered architects. The Petitioners therein seek a direction to the Ministry of Finance to cancel the permission granted to RSP Architects Planners and Engineers (PTE) Limited Singapore (hereinafter referred to as "RSP Singapore"), by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry vide its letter dated 08.01.1996, for setting up a wholly owned subsidiary company in India for providing services in architectural planning, design, civil engineering and construction management. It is pertinent to note that RSP Singapore's wholly owned subsidiary in India, i.e. M/S RSP Design Consultants India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "RSP India"), has been impleaded as a respondent in this second writ petition.

4. The third writ petition bearing no. W.P.(C) No.1435/2014 has been preferred by BDP Design Engineering Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "BDP Design"), which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, seeking quashing of circular dated 10.10.2011 (hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Circular No. 1") and circular dated 01.03.2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Circular No. 2") issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The Impugned Circulars collectively direct that no company or LLP will be incorporated, if it contains the provision of architectural services as one of its objectives, unless it obtains an approval/NOC from the COA to carry on the business or profession of architecture. The Petitioner in this writ petition also seeks quashing of notice dated 20.05.2013 issued by the COA (hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Notice"), wherein the COA has relied upon the Impugned Circular No. 2 and stated that it had received a complaint of violation of the Act by LLPs and companies by:

(i) using the word “architect” or its derivatives in their names and objects, for the purpose of carrying on the profession of an architect; and

(ii) by appointing foreign architects to carry out architectural works in India, without the prior approval of the Central Government under the Act.

Vide the Impugned Notice, the COA has essentially directed all companies and LLPs to stop such aforementioned alleged violations of the Act, by removing the word “architect” or its derivatives from their respective names and styles, and by amending the objects in their respective MOAs to remove the pro